Removing Tank Stance Argument

[Cabalabob]

Uh what.

Tanking "Stance" as the name changes but the term is pretty universal is any defensive / protection boost at the cost of offense power. It's been a hallmark of tanking archetypes for most RPG games, because the immovable wall of meat shouldn't also be throwing out high amounts of damage. Why bring the damage dealers, who are at risk of dying to the lightest breeze, if the guy who can't die does just as well?

Why would a Monk have to sacrifice their DPS to therefore tank if Tanks don't have to do this? That's the strange concept here.

Because a tanks damage should be naturally low, because they’re a tank, not a dps. A monk would need to sacrifice dps to tank because they’re not a tank.

A stance should be to make you do something you can’t do without it. A tank shouldn’t need a tank stance because they are already a tank. A tank at best should need a dps stance that sacrifices defence and enmity to increase damage.

I think the intention on SE's part was 'tank stance for when tanking, dps stance for when not tanking.'

That way you have your defenses and enmity aplenty when tanking things, but can do more damage when not. Be it in raids/trials when only one tank is needed, doing solo stuff, or phases of bosses where there isn't anything to tank like killing Ifrit nails or Omega level checker etc.

In practice however, the game's design has lead to a meta where tanks want a bare minimum defense/enmity to get the job done and then pump out as much damage as possible, because for the most part you don't NEED tank stance to tank outside of getting an early head start etc. Further compounded by provoke/shirk combos to boost enmity between tanks.

But again, why should a tank need tank stance? Why not just make the tanks naturally tanky? A dps stance for when solo or not tanking is fine although the same thing is achieved by just giving them separate combos for enmity and dps, but tank stance on a tank is redundant because they should basically just BE tank stance.